Caveat Emptor ethics

[Jamie Pillers]

We here in the U.S. tend to want simple rules to trust our lives to, probably because since our lives are so complicated otherwise we want to simplify as much as possible. A couple of examples that come to mind are "Let the market determine the price" and "Caveat emptor" (Let the buyer beware).

I think we've all come to see that if the marketplace is left to its own devices, greed can muck things up to no small degree. Hence regulation.

"Caveat emptor" - I looked it up in the dictionary. It says "the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the suitability of goods before a purchase is made." So I'd like to offer up a couple of scenarios and let you puzzle out the ethics of this principle.

First scenario: Imagine you purchase a used car from a dealer and the dealer claims its in perfect running order. You drive it around the block a couple of times and it seens to be as the seller says. Then, a month later the transmission starts making serious growling noises and you take it into a shop. They find the transmission filled with a concoction of heavy grease and sawdust... the perfect recipe to keep a damaged transmission quiet for awhile. Now.. what would you do? I'd take it back to the seller and say "you sold me a defective car, I want my money back". The seller says "I don't know anything about that stuff in the transmission, and you've had the car too long to bring it back now. You could have been racing the car for all I know. Tough luck!"

So is the naive buyer to blame here? Why didn't the buyer have a thorough inspection done first? Or should the dealer have inspected the car first and then sold it under an honest description of its problems?

Second scenario: Buyer (me) buys a camera advertised here at RFF. Advertisement says "previous owner stuck a finger through the shutter curtains, but I had it repaired and the camera operates perfectly." Buyer (me) receives the camera about a week later. Buyer doesn't have a lens yet, so can't run film through it. However at that time buyer notices that every fourth or fifth time he cocks the shutter, he has to double-cock it to get the shutter to fire. Buyer doesn't think much about this, assuming he's either not advancing the lever properly or that with film in the camera, the tension will take care of it. (The naive buyer is still trusting that the seller's statements were true.) Now, a month later with lens mounted and film installed, buyer (me) notices that the cocking problem has in fact not gone away and he's concerned that this could deteriorate into something worse. He (I) contact a repairman familiar with this camera and he says it could indeed be a problem with the shutter requiring complete replacement of the shutter mechanism at a cost of as much as $350! (More than buyer paid for the camera!)

Now a month after the sale, buyer (me) contacts the seller and asks if camera can be returned for a refund. Seller responds with a flat no and suggests buyer (me) took too long to uncover the problem. So... does "caveat emptor" clearly apply? And what's too long of a trial period? Is the buyer (me) to blame here? Or did the seller have some responsibility?

What do you think?

P.S.: If you think PayPal protects you from such things, think again. They don't accept complaints if the seller/buyer conversation doesn't take place through eBay.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I Think that you should have contacted the seller when you noticed that it wasn't cocking correctly rather than waiting to get a lens.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Hi Al,
Yep... should have. And I'll pay the price for that.

However, my post has to do with whether or not sellers have any responsibilities. Have we swallowed "caveat emptor" hook, line, and sinker? And if you had been the car owner, would you have asked the seller to take some responsibility?

Thanks for responding to the post.
Jamie

 

[Al Patterson]

Well, had you followed the teaching of "caveat emptor", you wouldn't be in the mess you are in.

That said, if you are not happy with an item, the seller should take it back within a reasonable time. At least if they want to have a decent reputation as a seller.

 

[wgerrard]

An axiom like "Let the market set the price" is a statement of intent or desire, not one that necessarily suggests the optimum approach. I.e., should we allow the market to set the price? I've concluded that we should, if and only if the market in question is a free market. By "free", I do not mean "free of government regulation." I mean a market that is not influenced by one entity or a group of entities. Markets tend to be dominated by one or a few players, whether sellers or buyers. Prices in these markets are not established by the unfettered hands of supply and demand.

Now...

Cavet emptor suggests the car buyer should have had the transmission inspected. Without evidence the dealer dumped sawdust in the gears, the buyer is out of luck. (That doesn't prevent him from hiring a lawyer and a detective to go after the evidence, but that isn't cost effective in what is an obvious small claims action.)

You and your camera: Immediately and thoroughly inspecting and testing an expensive new toy is something we should do every time we buy one. When we buy a new toy, the seller tells us what the time limit is for a return, etc. When we buy used toys, especially over the net from a stranger, we should ask the seller to establish a timeframe in which you can return the purchase should it prove counter to his descriptions. If something nefarious is discovered after that time expires, then the only recourse is through the courts.

I would fault you for waiting so long to do something about a camera with an obvious fault. Did you expect the addition of a lens to correct that problem?

So, no, we haven't "swallowed 'caveat emptor' hook, line, and sinker." The sellers have responsibilities. But, so do buyers. Waiting for a month to complain about a used and unwarranted product that showed a problem almost immediately upon purchase doesn't cut it in my book.

 

[35mmdelux]

1) the seller knew there were problems.
2) yes you should have notified seller early, but see #1.
3) I understand scenario. I bought a Hexar RF from a friend of a well know photog that posts here. First, instead of $25 shipping from Canada I have to pay an additional $20 because the seller says his "shipping dept goofed." So now it costs me $45 ship from Canada instead of agreed upon $20...But more importantly, the Hexar shutter dial was busted and I did not realize this until 10 days later when I verified it. Seller doesnt respond to 6 emails over three days until I insult his manhood. Seller than says I broke the shutter dial. Here, we go from not responding to decent emails to blaming the buyer. Finally, the seller says he will cover 50% the repair costing $150. So now in addition to $45 ship, $1200 (Hexar RF & 50mm/2.0 Hexar), plus $150 repair Im into this sham for $1400. A real great guy. They call this "situational ethics." I call it cr-p.

 

[Gumby]

Jamie, this does not sound like a theoretical scenario.

Have you been stiffed by a RFF member?

This sort of thing seems to be on the increase.

The OP indicates that this is not a theoretical siutation... it is a real-world experience. One has to read carefully through lots of philosophy and third-person references to self, i.e. "naive buyer (me)" to figure that out. The key quesiton, I think, is how long is a seller obligated to provide warrantee that the purchsed item is in the advertised condition. Seems to me that 1 month is a long time to have that expectation. It is quite expected that Jamie feels disappointed, if not "ripped off"... which is quite unfortunate.

 

[bgb]

I believe that as a buyer and a seller things should be described as they are or some sort of compensation made ... but not forever.
I guess a few weeks at most and after that i would be saying no way. You should have given it a good inspection when it arrived and contacted the seller ASAP, I believe you have waited to long.
I have been in the same place and it truly sucks, i was also very pi**ed off and angry... but it my MY error in trusting someone i had no reason to trust.
I have now decided on to buy online from people i trust or buy in person from people i trust ...

 

[wgerrard]

I don't think it's "situational ethics." I think you were ripped off. But, whether or not a seller knowingly ships faulty merchandise and keeps that a secret from the buyer is really pretty irelevant unless the buyer has recourse to some established remedy that can be enforced against the buyer. That's proven to be very, very difficult with online sales because a seller can simply ignore an unhappy buyer, short of court action or action by an involved third party like a credit card company or PayPal.

 

[Rayt]

There is no implied warranty with second hand goods, but at the same time there is no way to inspect the goods at the time of purchase when buying unseen. Therefore an amount of trust is involved. When I was buying stuff from evilbay 10 years ago, before they had all those buyer protection policies in place I had quite of few deals that went like as you described. Usually the seller blamed me for the damage and most often blamed the courier and then advised me to file a claim with the post office. What is still prevalent is some sellers' inability to properly distinguish "minty" from the actual "user" he is selling. I understand there is some risk in dealing with people you don't know and then not able to inspect the goods prior to purchase so I always have it in the back of my head that I won't spend more money this way then what I can comfortably lose.

 

[35mmdelux]

There is no implied warranty unless the seller sells as mint or excellent condition. At this point one would expect the gear to be fully functional.

 

[Jerry Thirsty]

As far as a time frame for which the buyer might expect a refund, my personal expectation would be at least a week after receipt, but not more that two. If the problem existed when it arrived, IMO it's reasonable to expect that the buyer should be able to discover it in 7-14 days. It isn't reasonable to expect the seller to sit on the money for a month waiting to hear whether the buyer is satisfied or not. But the seller also needs to specify what that length of time is up-front.

 

[colyn]

I agree that the seller who sells knowing a problem exists should be required to refund but what about the seller who sells a 40+ year old camera that was working when he/she packaged it up and shipped?

Should the seller who gives an accurate description and ships a working camera with no faults that he/she is aware of be required to refund in full if the camera develops a problem after the buyer receives it and puts it to use??

Or what about the buyer that expects perfection from said 40+ year old camera when neither the seller or buyer knows the history of that camera??

 

[rya]

A famous economics paper written in 1970 by (then grad student) George Akerlof was titled "The Market for Lemons." Since then, the economist view of these situations is that when asymmetric information exists between buying and selling parties, the prices adjust to reflect this. If a used car is worth $2000 in good condition and $1000 in bad condition, but the conditions of such cars in the market is unknown to the buyer, the price will be somewhere in between. From this, I say that used car dealers are punished for selling good cars in an uncertain market and must rely on their reputation to get prices they deserve. But I would also say it is still unethical to sell a vehicle with undisclosed serious problems.

In the camera situation, I say it was obviously unethical and the camera should be returned if no terms of return were specified by the seller. He received payment for a "perfectly" working camera that was never delivered. For all you know, he sent you the wrong camera. I see the problem that you waited "too long," although if no terms were specified there can be no such thing as too long. Even if he said "no returns, period" from the start--he did not send you the described item. If he allowed a fair and certain amount of time (e.g 20 days), then your return could be refused since the camera could have broken in transit or during your first four shutter cocks.

That is just what I say.

 

[kshapero]

1) the seller knew there were problems.
2) yes you should have notified seller early, but see #1.
3) I understand scenario. I bought a Hexar RF from a friend of a well know photog that posts here. First, instead of $25 shipping from Canada I have to pay an additional $20 because the seller says his "shipping dept goofed." So now it costs me $45 ship from Canada instead of agreed upon $20...But more importantly, the Hexar shutter dial was busted and I did not realize this until 10 days later when I verified it. Seller doesnt respond to 6 emails over three days until I insult his manhood. Seller than says I broke the shutter dial. Here, we go from not responding to decent emails to blaming the buyer. Finally, the seller says he will cover 50% the repair costing $150. So now in addition to $45 ship, $1200 (Hexar RF & 50mm/2.0 Hexar), plus $150 repair Im into this sham for $1400. A real great guy. They call this "situational ethics." I call it cr-p.

post his user name to protect the rest of us.

 

[chris00nj]

A famous economics paper written in 1970 by (then grad student) George Akerlof was titled "The Market for Lemons." Since then, the economist view of these situations is that when asymmetric information exists between buying and selling parties, the prices adjust to reflect this. If a used car is worth $2000 in good condition and $1000 in bad condition, but the conditions of such cars in the market is unknown to the buyer, the price will be somewhere in between. From this, I say that used car dealers are punished for selling good cars in an uncertain market and must rely on their reputation to get prices they deserve. But I would also say it is still unethical to sell a vehicle with undisclosed serious problems.

In the camera situation, I say it was obviously unethical and the camera should be returned if no terms of return were specified by the seller. He received payment for a "perfectly" working camera that was never delivered. For all you know, he sent you the wrong camera. I see the problem that you waited "too long," although if no terms were specified there can be no such thing as too long. Even if he said "no returns, period" from the start--he did not send you the described item. If he allowed a fair and certain amount of time (e.g 20 days), then your return could be refused since the camera could have broken in transit or during your first four shutter cocks.

That is just what I say.

Indeed.

Possible lemons go for less in the camera market. On the bay, many used Leica screwmount bodies "inherited by father" go for much less when there are listed "as-is".

Now if he said, "as-is" that is the ultimate caveat emptor. If not, especially here on RFF, people should make a representation of the camera's quality. I doubt anyone selling here can claim that "they know nothing about cameras"

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Yes, Richard, I believe I was 'stiffed'. But I've 'let it go' now. However what I hate about this sort of thing is that it knocks one's 'trusting nature' around a bit. I've always tried to be scrupulous about things I sell here and on eBay. I think everyone should be that way. But they're not, and when I'm reminded of that, like now, I feel disappointed.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Bill,
Thanks for the thorough reading of my post. Much appreciated. I agree with anyone here that wants to make the point that a month is too much. But a day, a week, 8 days? What does it matter if the seller has not been honest.

The reason for my post was not to argue my position in this matter. I've clearly shown why I was a "knucklehead". The point of the post was simply to get a conversation going about honesty, and how honesty somehow gets pushed off the stage by shouts of "caveat emptor".
Jamie

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Exactly. So I wondering if anyone has figured out, or heard about, any kind of incentive that could encourage honesty in advertising? It seems like a topic well worth our society's consideration. I feel like "caveat emptor" is a trick that has been played on us... sort of the easy way out to avoid all the messiness of developing honest commerce.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Yes... that's what happens to many of us in this situation. Its not right... having to narrow the world down to "people we trust". I'm not naive here... the world is that way and has always been that way. But the situation does get me to thinking about whether there might be some sort of incentive that could be build into the 'system' that encourages honesty. Probably not... but the idea intrigues me.